|
|||||||||
Posted October 1, 2001
Dogma of Division
[Regarding Richard Hill's guest column of September 27, "The First Casualty":]
The
article is correct except that Ph.D. Hill co-opts common
sense as leftist. He may be right in believing, in this
case, that the "right" is owned by warmongers
with an Israeli agenda, but those who oppose a war for
the benefit of that collection of aging terrorists are
not just leftists. Rather, it is a populist sense. Populists
can be found in all the faulty-designed political spectrum
that is used, especially by academia, to mislead.
It's time to forget the old dogma of division which has
been designed by the real enemies of the people. The true
division is the people opposed to the tiny elite who think
they have been designated by God to be the god of the
rest of us.
Recently the world has witnessed people of all persuasions
coming together in protests against such elitist creations
as the WTO. Let's not be so foolish as to use old, offensive
and inadequate labels to help that little bunch of egotistical
mastoids retain their position of power while we, once
again, fight among ourselves.
~ Mr. T. Blizzard
Richard Hill replies:
Morally speaking, I sympathize with Mr. Blizzard's complaint about my categorization of those who are now most pro-war, and those whom I categorized as the potential dissenters to this coming war. My categorization, however, is not a moral judgment, but merely a political analysis. I argue that those who are now most pro-war are the Republicans, and that the probable major dissent will arise from the Democratic Party, beginning on its left wing. I make this prediction based on the history of the domestic politics of U.S. foreign policy.
I only do this to explain what the major political situation will look like in the coming months or years. I do not make this prediction to insult anyone who might now oppose the war, but who is not on the left. I myself am not on the left, and yet I oppose Mr. Bush's proposed war, just as I opposed his father's war. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I am only antiwar, and I embrace anyone else who is, whether they are on the left, right, or in any political party.
My piece, "The First Casualty," was only a prediction and not an insinuation that the future antiwar Democrats are more virtuous than antiwar non-Democrats. I only point out that the only truly politically significant antiwar movements have always risen on the left, and they will again. By saying that, I do not mean to insult any antiwar libertarians, for example. But lets face it, antiwar libertarians, unfortunately, have never had anywhere near the antiwar political impact that antiwar leftists and Democrats have had, and will have again. Antiwar libertarians, however, should take comfort in the fact that the antiwar left will again explode, sooner or later, and do something politically significant to hinder Mr. Bush's War.
Internationalist Noninterventionism
I would like to add my two cents worth to the Backtalk editor's reply to "It's the Economy" on September 18. I see many libertarians advocate that the US adopt an "isolationist" foreign policy. While I understand what they mean, I think it would be much better if we use the term "noninterventionist" instead of "isolationist." Indeed, libertarians can legitimately claim to be "robust internationalists" in that they are ardent free-traders and support "commerce... with all nations" (to use Jefferson's words), and are opposed to the mindless imposition of sanctions and embargoes that happens all too facilely today and that qualifies as real "isolationism," in my opinion.
To
put this another way, libertarians should stress to non-libertarians
that we are highly supportive of constructive engagements
between the American people and peoples of other countries
and that this has nothing to do with the endless attempts
of our government to meddle in their affairs.
~ Andy in New Orleans
The "Backtalk" editor replies:
Yeah, but I was ironically quoting the letter writer's odd use of the term – and I qualified "isolationism" by putting the word "military" before it, by putting quotes around it, and by linking it to Murray Rothbard's definition of the word.
Top Five Asinine Things
[Regarding Drew Howe's letter of September 29, "Pathetic Child":]
This isn't the most asinine thing I have read in the past six months or so, but it is in the top five.
What "duty"?
We
(as human Americans) will all end up "dead
in this country anyway" in the end, no matter what
we do.
I
still want to know who "they" are.
"Honor"?
That is a laugh.
I'd have a heck of a lot more respect for someone that was against taking the life of a fellow human being out of revenge and in the service of the power elite, than one who blindly obeyed without question. Remember the Nuremberg trials?
Question Joe Six-pack
I work for a small opinion polling web site based in Sydney, Australia. We do not conduct traditional yes/no scientific polls, so some would say our data is worthless... on the other hand, our method prevents us from using most of the dirty tricks available to ordinary pollsters.
On our site, people can vote for any opinion they wish, in the form of a short phrase, or "placard". They can also add a new placard which best describes their stance, and hope that others will vote for it.
The most popular WTC-related placard with both our US and Australian visitors is "America stay calm do not provoke war". Placards calling for war have only a quarter as many voters, over the past week.
Now, due to the small number of voters we have so far, we are subject to being "hijacked" by minorities... however, almost all our US voters have come to us by way of search engines, searching for "public opinion" or "online poll" or something similar... we can't get a more random sample than that. I suspect this reluctance to go to war is the general sentiment in the US, at least among internet users.
I think it would be interesting if you sent one of the Antiwar.com writers to question Joe Six-pack on the US streets. If the majority of Americans are truly against war, I think one of your writers should dedicate a paragraph or maybe even a page to the matter of public opinion.
~ Milivoj Savin, Bigpulse.com
Good Morning America
Good morning América: bonjour a vous américain du sud mes plus sincère condoléence.
I was born in 1944, and I remember the people talking about World War I and II. I would ask, with your permission, the Président, M. Bush: Why, why did those 5000 brothers of mine – as a Christian – die on 11 of September 2001?
My answer is: they did not die for us to do a third world war.... They all died for us to think, analyze, and do something about what we are doing to this Garden of Eden – our world. Everyone that tried to rule the world in any way they could got killed: Christ, Cesar, Alexandre le grand, Napoléon, Hitler.
Those people died to tell us something is wrong. We've got to make this world a better world for those who need it and for our children in the future.
God sent us the 5000 angels to help us focus on brotherhood instead of money, Love instead of power to dominate, and Understanding instead of war. Those 5000 souls will be our shadow from now on, watching us.
M. Président, for all our children in this world, please don't make war. Don't show them how to used guns – that is what our enemies want.
Let's pray and ask our 5000 angels what to do, and believe me, you will get an answer to your prayers.
Faite l'amour non la guerre!
'Get With' The Current Events
You all need to get with the current events. Your stance on Antiwar no longer applies because it was brought to our soil. All Americans are soldiers now and will be in a war every day until we wipe out these terrorists. You can start supporting that effort or you can look for safe haven in another country – that is if you can find it.
The "Backtalk" editor replies:
Congratulations! Criticizing Antiwar.com for being unaware of current events is a new and unique approach.
The terrorists who hijacked the planes are dead. The government says that the "war" against terrorists may never end. Must "all Americans" be soldiers "in a war every day" forever? And what word or phrase should we use to describe a country in which all citizens are soldiers fighting a perpetual war?